Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 14 Jun 2003 23:20:49 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 2.5.70-mm9 |
| |
Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 2003-06-14 at 01:01, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Was elevator=deadline observed to fail in earlier kernels? If not then it > > may be an anticipatory scheduler bug. It certainly had all the appearances > > of that. > Yes, with elevator=deadline the many fsx tests failed on 2.5.70-mm5. > > > So once you're really sure that elevator=deadline isn't going to fail, > > could you please test elevator=as? > > > Ok, the deadline test was run for 10 hours then I stopped it (for the > elevator=as test). > > But the test on elevator=as (2.5.70-mm9 kernel) still failed, same > problem. Some fsx tests are sleeping on io_schedule(). > > Next I think I will re-run test on elevator=deadline for 24 hours, to > make sure the problem is really gone there. After that maybe try a > different Qlogic Driver, currently I am using the driver from Qlogic > company(QLA2XXX V8).
Martin has just observed what appears to be the same failure on 2.5.71-mjb1, which is the deadline scheduler, using qlogicisp.
Again, some IO appears to have been submitted but it never came back.
It could be a bug in the requests queueing code somewhere, or in the device driver.
So a good thing to do now would be to find the workload+IO scheduler+filesystem which triggers it most easily, and run that with a different device driver. The feral driver (drivers/scsi/isp/ in -mm) should be suitable for that test.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |